`
“Liberal”, as the article notes, is now a much contested term. This is what The Economist writes:

The definition of liberalism has long been the source of disagreement. The very term has come to mean “progressive” in the United States, whereas in Britain it has kept its older meaning of being respectful of individual freedom and the wisdom that can be drawn from free thought and open debate.

Once liberalism was invaded by the Fabians, I’m not sure all that much of its original meaning remains, but with Jordan Peterson and others like him prowling about, who knows what the future might bring.

“whereas in Britain it has kept its older meaning of being respectful of individual freedom and the wisdom that can be drawn from free thought and open debate.”

I keep hearing this, and I don’t know where they get it from. The British Liberal party merged with the Social Democrats thirty years ago. These days, it’s little more than a vehicle for protest votes by pro-EU Labour supporters. Look at the way their heads exploded when it went into coalition with the Tories a few years back, as if the party that the Liberal Unionists and the National Liberals ultimately merged with couldn’t possibly have anything in common with the Conservatives. I suspect most Brits are completely clueless as to what liberalism is, but if pushed would probably come up with something very close, if not identical, to the American idea.

Your lot in Australia are about the closest in the world to the original meaning nowadays. And you know what they’re like.

Darn it. “… as if the party that the Liberal Unionists and the National Liberals ultimately merged with couldn’t possibly have anything in common with them.” The party the Unionists and NLs merged with was, of course, the Conservatives.